TUSCALOOSA, AL (RNN) – April 27, 2011. A horrific storm system that killed more than 300 people in seven states across the South is one of the worst the country has experienced in more than four decades. In the 24-hour period that ended at 8 a.m. CT Thursday, 163 tornadoes had been reported by eye witnesses. One of those, a mile-wide tornado that bisected Alabama, killed more than 200 people in that state alone, barely missing a college campus housing thousands of students, but leveling a large swatch of town with its destruction. Officials are on the ground Thursday assessing the damage and delivering emergency services and supplies to the victims of the storm. Alabama took the hardest hit by far. As of early Friday morning, CNN reported that 228 people in 19 counties had died in Alabama. A state of emergency was declared by the president shortly after the storms raged through. In his statement Wednesday, Obama said he told Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, R-AL, he had ordered the federal government to move swiftly in its emergency response. &amp;quot;I approved his request for emergency Federal assistance, including search and rescue assets,&amp;quot; Obama said. Especially hard hit was the city of Tuscaloosa, home to the University of Alabama. In the college town, a mile-wide tornado killed 32 people and injured hundreds, tossing boats from a store into an apartment complex, ripping holes in rooftops and destroying a swath of restaurant establishments along a bustling street. &amp;quot;I don&apos;t know how anyone survived,&amp;quot; the Tuscaloosa Mayor Walter Maddox told CNN. &amp;quot;We&apos;re used to tornadoes here in Tuscaloosa. It&apos;s part of growing up. But when you look at the path of destruction that&apos;s likely 5 to 7 miles long in an area half a mile to a mile wide ... it&apos;s an amazing scene. There&apos;s parts of the city I don&apos;t recognize, and that&apos;s someone that&apos;s lived here his entire life.&amp;quot; Hundreds of buildings and homes were leveled by the tornado. Overnight Wednesday, search and rescue personnel looked for victims who could be buried beneath the rubble. Video of the Tuscaloosa tornado/ This video is from the EF4 tornado that went through Tuscaloosa, AL on 4/27/11. It was taken from the University Mall parking lot. Probably the closest video to the storm your going to see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ohIVzIZLuQ

The massive tornado left Tuscaloosa&apos;s two hospitals swirling in activity. One, in direct line of the storm, also suffered damage from the twister. &amp;quot;We&apos;re estimating around 600 were treated at DCH Regional Medical Center,&amp;quot; said Brad Fisher, DCH spokesman. Windows in several patient rooms as well as a waiting area were blown out there. Fisher said the hospital was without water for about six hours, and power was only restored in the wee hours of morning. More than 100 patients per hour flooded their doors immediately after the storm, Fisher said. The hospital admitted 92 people and reported five dead as of Thursday morning. &amp;quot;Our numbers will increase today,&amp;quot; Fisher said. &amp;quot;Business in the ED is steady, so we&apos;re not done.

The impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on New Orleans, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Bayou LaBatre, Alabama and other coastal areas was the “largest natural disaster in U.S. history.” Thousands of health care personnel and their families were stranded in New Orleans or evacuated perhaps never to return. The decision to come home or to take up life in a new city or state may be influenced by many reasons personal to each person, however much of the influence on these folk is due to the psychological traumas experienced as a result of the ethically perpetuated conflicts with which they were forced to contend, in some instances. And now, CDC tells us that the pandemic is coming – the disaster that will be, seen in the movie, “Contagion” (2011) in which everybody dies. See the paper for a history of notable pandemics. (SEE WIKIPEDIA “PANDEMIC”) And then there was Haiti. 200,000 dead. A disaster of unbelievable proportions. And now, an outbreak of Cholera. One thing I do is disaster planning. I think the principles apply to life as well. Thus, make yours a life, not a disaster.

In solving the riddle, CDC asks us to answer these questions: And CDC asked us to answer these questions: What objectives, principles, strategies, criteria, assumptions and rationales should be considered in pandemic vaccine prioritization determinations? What is the relative importance of the three goals described above and what are the associated implications for vaccine prioritization? Which population group(s) should have priority for receiving pre-pandemic vaccine? Which should have priority for receiving pandemic vaccine? What is the rationale? How can fairness, equity, efficiency and related principles be reflected in the determination of priority groupings for receipt of pre-pandemic or pandemic vaccine? For priority groups, how should vaccine be allocated, distributed and administered? Who (Federal, State or local authorities) should determine when and how the vaccine is distributed and administered? Good questions for our discussion.

But first, let’s look at you. An Ethical Person - How many of you think of yourself as an “ethical person.” What’s that based on? Who exceeded the speed limit on the way to this week’s activities? Why, don’t you think speed limits are important? Are you above the law? Why do you think they have speed limits? From where do ethics come? From where do our personal ethics come? ( From “your Mama.”) The poet, Robert Fulghum in All I Ever Needed to Know, I learned in Kindergarten . tells us that our ethical principles are formulated as children at our mother’s knee and in early school. See the poem in the paper. Behaviorists tell us that such is basically true. We learn or inherit our ethical principles, (depending on your viewpoint) when we are young children. By the time we are grown up, they are basically set. They can be changed a bit, but mostly just controlled or coped. However, studies also tell us the employees copy their ethics from those of the supervisor, so that the example of supervisors should be considered.

See if you can discover the secret. (Hint: the secret’s in the sauce.) Purpose of the Paper - The purpose of this paper is to ask you a lot of questions and help you discover the answers from within yourself so that ultimately, you will be able to make decisions from within enabling you to go about living outside yourself. Beyond this, there is a secret – “the secret’s in the sauce.” [1] “Living outside yourself” is a concept which will be more fully developed infra. [2] “The secret’s in the sauce,” from Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe , (1987) by the Alabama writer, Fannie Flagg.

Ethical Lines ­ - We each have ethical boundaries, lines that we will not cross or will not cross except with great stress. This is an application of the famous “80-20 Rule. It is said that 20% of people are on the margins. Ten per cent will basically never act in a manner contrary to their ethical principles. Some of these are religious, some are not. The other ten percent of people basically have few ethical principles or their ethical principles are so shaded toward personal gain that effectively, they have no ethical principles when compared to those of society in general. Obviously, many of these are criminals that have or will be imprisoned at some time in their lives. The other 80% of the population are basically principled people who will be more or less easily led to do right or do wrong. This is an application of “Pareto&apos;s Principle.” In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the late 1940s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to Pareto, calling it Pareto&apos;s Principle. Business Ethics – Business ethicists tell us that the job of a boss or manager is not to teach ethics to his or her employees, but to learn which employees will react ethically in a given situation and try to place employees in a position to succeed rather than to fail. However, they are watching him and he should set the example by his leadership in ethical behavior.

&amp;quot;To Tell the Truth, the Whole truth and nothing but the Truth&amp;quot; -We must first study and learn the absolute truths and never vary from them. If we devote our total allegiance to the truth, we will be free to make ethical decisions without fear of making a mistake, (not without making mistakes, but without fear of making mistakes) and without fear of the consequences because, if we have followed the truth, we are not responsible for the consequences, the truth is responsible for the consequences. It is when we do not follow the truth, that we transfer the responsibility for failure to ourselves. “ There is absolute truth. In the planning process, there are certain rules, facts and principles that will have to be applied. It is your duty to know these “truths..” before you start planning. The &amp;quot;No Delta Principle&amp;quot;- Ethical principles do not change no matter the situation, only the application of them. Moral Relativism is a myth. “ Free at last, free at last!” You will know the truth and the truth shall make you free. “ The Principle of the Plumbline&amp;quot; - In the storm, we make our decisions by applying the plumb line and level of the truth. &amp;quot;We&apos;ll Sing in the Sunshine&amp;quot;- To the extent practicable, we pre-plan disaster decisions in the sunshine. “ Casper the Friendly Ghost,” – Transparency and accountability are twins. “ You’re a pane ” - Transparency - To the extent possible, decisions should be made not only in the sunshine temporally, by also visually and influentially as well. “ No Accountability Vacuum.” No matter how well intentioned we start out, if there is an accountability vacuum, we are strongly tempted to cut corners. &amp;quot;It&apos;s Not About Me.&amp;quot; We need to adopt the idea that life is not about me. That frees us from worrying about ourselves and frees us to make these plumb and square decisions. “ The Nike Principle – We are all familiar with Nike’s famous slogan, “ Just Do It.” Just do it NOW. Resist the urge to procrastinate. Focus, please - The danger with “just doing it, is that one can become like a charging rhinoceros. Truth or Consequences Everything we do has consequences. We must be aware of that fact and must be aware of the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” [ However, perhaps the greater danger for the government planner is not that he or she doesn’t think through the possible consequences, but rather that he so over thinks the consequences that he is paralyzed in the decision-making process. Hence, back to the main bullet – Just Do It!

Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital – An Ethical Dilemma The Problem - The Great Pandemic of 2000-whatever is raging. You are Dr. Gregory House, the bizarre diagnostician and internist of Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital and you are attempting to cope with this disaster unfolding before your eyes. It plays out in a million stories, but one of them presents you with a series of choices to make that will affect the lives of people and probably your career. [1] The characters below show up at Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital , the county’s only general hospital. They have symptoms consistent with the raging pandemic flu. Resources and staff are past the breaking point. There are two general questions that you must answer about triage and staff participation: who gets what and when and keeping staff? Triage: How will hospitals sort patients to determine priority for treatment? What criteria will be used? Who will develop those criteria? [1] Alabama State Health Officer, Dr. Donald E. Williamson, is fond of saying that when these circumstances arise, we will be faced with “career-ending” decisions.

The Characters: Lisa Cuddy: female, age 18, recent high school graduate, Miss Cuddy was the salutatorian of her senior class; she plans to attend Johns-Hopkins in the fall and to pursue medicine as a diagnostician. Stacy Warner: female, age 64, registered nurse, Warner has been employed at your hospital for 14 years. Phillip Weber: male, age 23, bus boy at local restaurant, (PLAYED HERE BY Forrest Gump.) Mr. Weber suffers from a moderate form of autism; however, he did complete high school and plans to attend college in the fall. James Wilson: male, age 61, police officer, Mr. Wilson plans to retire from the police force in the next 4 years. Unknown: male, age 42, This homeless man was found in an abandoned building; he apparently was attempting to care for 3 other homeless individuals who were suffering from the flu as well. Michael Tritter: male, age 52, janitor at your hospital, Mr. Tritter has worked in the maintenance department of your hospital for 29 years; he is the president of the hospital’s maintenance facility workers’ union. Allison Cameron: female, age 86, (seen here in a picture taken some years ago, is a retired journalist, Mrs. Cameron and her husband are holocaust survivors; she and he give between 10 and 20 lectures each year about their experience in a concentration camp.

Ethical Questions to work on Triage: How to sort patients to determine priority for treatment? What criteria will be used? Who will develop those criteria?

Sources of Personal Ethical Principles: Our personal ethics are drawn from our background and the principles we learned at home, be they religious in origin or not. Ancient Greeks Certainly, religious teaches have had an incalculable effects of the ethical conduct of men and women. It probably does an injustice to pass over as summarily as we must in this brief course the plenary teachings of the great religious leaders through the millennia, but we can take a quick snap shot of them. Religious teachings Hindu Buddhism Judaism Christianity Islam Cultural teachings -American Historical Documents Declaration of Independence United States Constitution

Ancient Greece Our personal ethics are drawn from our background and the principles we learned at home, be they religious in origin or not. We are influenced by our culture in great degree. Ancient Greece birthed Western philosophical ethics. Whitehead stated: &amp;quot;The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.&amp;quot; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who lived in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, are perhaps best known to us, but they were not the first Greeks to considered ethical problems. Earlier poetic literature laid the foundation for their ideas. Plato and Aristotle quoted the most prominent of the earliest ethical philosophers, known as the “Seven Sages.” Thales of Miletus ,, Pittacus of Mytilene , Bias of Priene , Solon , Cleobulus of Lindus, Myson of Chen , and Chilon of Sparta according to Plato quoting Socrates. Each is quoted by a pithily: Solon of Athens - &amp;quot;Nothing in excess&amp;quot; Chilon of Sparta - &amp;quot;Know thyself&amp;quot; Thales of Miletus - &amp;quot;To bring surety brings ruin&amp;quot; Bias of Priene - &amp;quot;Too many workers spoil the work&amp;quot; Cleobulus of Lindos - &amp;quot;Moderation is the chief good&amp;quot; Pittacus of Mitylene - &amp;quot;Know thine opportunity&amp;quot; Periander of Corinth - &amp;quot;Forethought in all things&amp;quot;

Socrates’ ethical philosophy is summarized in the phrase, “know thyself.” He taught that in truly knowing yourself, you could really discern what was “good.” Plato argues that human well-being is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct. He believed that these were learned skills and one should study the sciences and philosophy to improve one’s knowledge of “the good.” Aristotle’s approach was more practical, urging that we apply our concepts of courage, justice, temperance and the other virtues in social settings and hone the skills based on the social interplay. What they did for us is to give us not only ethical thought but an ethical framework upon which Western civilization is built. This filters on down to us through 2500 years.

The oldest extant religion is certainly Hindu. In Hindu thought, the Sanskrit term “Dharma” refers to the underlying order in Nature and human life and behavior considered to be in accord with that order. Ethically, it means “right way of living” or “proper conduct,” especially in a religious sense. Dharma is a central concept in religions and philosophies originating in India. These religions and philosophies are called Dharmic religions. The principal ones are Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Buddhism (Buddha dharma), Jainism (Jain Dharma) and Sikhism, all of which emphasize Dharma (the correct understanding of Nature) in their teachings. In these traditions, beings that live in accordance with Dharma proceed more quickly toward personal liberation. In traditional Hindu society with its caste structure, Dharma constituted the religious and moral doctrine of the rights and duties of each individual. The voluminous Hindu writings are primarily a product of the Brahmanical tradition in India and represent the elaborate scholastic system of an expert tradition. The Dharma is important within the Hindu tradition--first, as a source of religious law describing the life of an ideal householder and, second, as symbol of the summation of Hindu knowledge about religion, law, ethics, and many other things. The writings have been divided into three major topics:  acara, rules pertaining to daily rituals, life-cycle cites, and other duties of four castes or varnas,  vyavahara, rules pertaining to the procedures for resolving doubts about dharma and rules of substantive law categorized according the standard eighteen titles of Hindu law, and  prayascitta, rules, expiations and penances for violations of the rules of dharma. In the yoga tradition of Hindu, its founder, Panta  jali (200BC) discussed what he called the “8 Fold Path” which he pictures as a woman with eight arms circling her.

Buddhism – In Buddhism, any person who has awakened from the &amp;quot;sleep of ignorance&amp;quot; by directly realizing the true nature of reality is called a &amp;quot;buddha.&amp;quot; Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, is the most notable but only one among other buddhas before or after him. His teachings are oriented toward the attainment of this kind of awakening, also called enlightenment, Bodhi, liberation, or “Nirvana.”

Part of the Buddha’s teachings regarding the holy life and the goal of liberation is constituted by the &amp;quot;The Four Noble Truths&amp;quot;, which focus on suffering or the sorrow of life. The Four Noble Truths regarding suffering state what is its nature, its cause, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. This way to the cessation of suffering is called &amp;quot;The Noble Eightfold Path&amp;quot;, which is one of the fundamentals of Buddhist virtuous or moral life. The Noble Eightfold Path: Right Speech - One speaks in a non-hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way. Right Actions - Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do and Right Livelihood - One&apos;s way of livelihood does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly. Within this division are another three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path: o Right Effort/Exercise - One makes an effort to improve; o Right Mindfulness/Awareness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness; and o Right Concentration - Being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion. Within this division fall two more parts of the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Thoughts and Right Understanding.

Judaism. - Moses, ( circa. 1400-1200 BC) gives us not only the Jewish faith but the ethical principles which underlie it, the Decalogue. The Ten Commandments, or Ethical Decalogue (as distinguished from the ritual Decalogue), are a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh were written by God and given to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of two stone tablets. They feature prominently in Judaism and Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant. The phrase &amp;quot;Ten Commandments&amp;quot; generally refers to the broadly identical passages in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The commandments passage in Exodus contains more than ten imperative statements or “Words,” totaling 14 or 15 in all. However, the Bible itself assigns the count of 10. Faiths and denominations have divided these statements in different ways. The table below highlights those differences using the New Revised Standard Version translation. You will note that there are 13 sayings divided in different ways over the years by scholars of the Judaic tradition and the Christian denominations including Protestant and Catholic/Lutheran. You shall have no other gods before Me You shall not make for yourself an idol You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy Honor your parents You shall not murder You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal You shall not bear false witness You shall not covet your neighbor&apos;s wife You shall not covet your neighbor&apos;s house... These ethical principles have been elaborated on by the rabbinical tradition over the centuries, (or as I have said, “Moses gave us the Law and man wrote the regs.”)

Christianity – The ethical teachings of Jesus build on the Judaic concepts of ethical behavior but take the teachings in an internal manner. The greatest portion of Jesus’ teaching comes from the so-called “Sermon on the Mount.” Jesus states that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus reaffirms the principles of the Decalogue and commands strict adherence. And, in being most critical of the Pharisaic tradition of keeping the “jot and tittle” of the law, but with a bad motive, He tells those seated on the Horns of Hatten that their righteousness must exceed that standard. In much of the discourse that follows, Jesus takes a fresh look at the various words of the Decalogue and places his spin on them. Their essence, however is that mere adherence to the law is not sufficient. Jesus teaches that man must do more than appear to be righteous, he must be righteous. In summary of the Sermon on the Mount, J esus, through example, admonishes listeners to approach life in two ways: both negatively and positively. When you are done wrong, let it go, don’t insist on your rights and don’t act out of spite. But He goes further, on to the positive telling the reader, rather to be generous to the wrongdoer. The Apostle Paul adds to this, “be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with the good.” No discussion of the ethical teachings of Jesus would be complete without perhaps His most famous ethical statement found in Matthew 5:43, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (KJV.) The gospel writer, Luke, perhaps recording this same event has Jesus state, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The teachings of Jesus would seem to go on about love. In fact, they do. In Matthew 22:35-40 (KJV), we find this answer to the question posed by the scribe, perhaps to attempt to trap Jesus or perhaps merely seeking his thoughts on the subject which was one of discussion in the rabbinic tradition of the Jews as to which was the greatest of the commandments. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. [Jesus adds unsolicited, quoting the Shema ] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself . [And His summary statement:] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. One historian, Johnson, argues that Jesus is paraphrasing Rabbi Hillel under whom Jesus may have studied. Rabbi Hillell was famous for his aphorisms and Jesus was wont to quote them fairly frequently.

Thus, the ethical teachings of Christianity as stated by Jesus reaffirms the spirit of the Jewish Ethical Decalogue underlain by the two-edged principle of love. “Love God and love man.” How is this expressed in real life? The Apostle John records in John 14:15 Jesus near last word to his Disciples, (NIV) “if you love me, you will obey my command.” That’s how Jesus tells them to love God [Jesus having equated Himself with God in the great “I am” sayings peppered throughout the Gospel of John.] How does one love man – by treating him as you would treat yourself The Apostle Paul says, to reach God, one must be righteous, but man is not righteous by nature, thus a spiritual dilemma. [1] Paul tells us that it is by taking on the “mind of Christ” [2] that we can be made righteous and thus reach God. Thus the writer’s herein concept of “living outside yourself.” This principle is the expansion of the “it’s not about me” principle. It is a good thing to understand that life is not about yourself, however, to live in such a manner that recognizes this principle and applies it to daily life is “living outside yourself.” [1] Romans 3:23 [2] Philippians 2:5

Islam – Islam starts in 622, when the Prophet Mohammed migrated to Medina. There, his preaching was accepted and the community-state of Islam emerged. During this early period, Islam became a world religion uniting in itself both the spiritual and temporal aspects of life and seeking to regulate not only the individual&apos;s relationship to God (through his conscience) but human relationships in a social setting as well. Thus, there is not only an Islamic religious institution but also an Islamic law, state, and other institutions governing society. Islamic doctrine, law, and thinking in general are based upon four sources, or fundamental principles: (1) the Qur&apos;an, (2) the sunnah (“traditions”), (3) ijma&apos; (“consensus”), and (4) ijtihad (“individual thought”). It is said that the Qur’an did not first put forth the ethical principles but merely “reminded” man of their pre-existence. The Qur’an does not tell the reader where the principles were first stated. However, Mohammed thought of himself as the last of the prophets beginning with Abraham and including Jesus. It may well be assumed that Mohammed would have approved their ethical teachings. The Qur&apos;an (literally, “Reading” or “Recitation”) is regarded as the verbatim word, or speech, of God delivered to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. Divided into 114 surah s (chapters) of unequal length, it is the fundamental source of Islamic teaching. Mohammed, from a semi-nomadic background in Arabia settling in the commercially thriving city of Mecca, became more and more concerned about the changing lifestyle of his Arab brothers – the loss of traditional “tribal values” diminished by the commercial success of the city with its attendant rise in capitalism. He believed that new “cult of self-sufficiency” would mean the disintegration of the tribe, thus he sought to restore the people to the elevated good of the tribe juxtaposed as against the good of the individual: valuing the gain of others more than own one’s own gain; deep, strong egalitarianism; taking care of the poor, the orphan and the widow and indifference to material goods

Seen against this background, Islam sees as one of its goals, perhaps the chief goal, the ideal of an Islamic social order, a Moslem (faithful) society. The foundation of Islamic ethics must be understood also in terms of its distinctive and foundational quality. As we have said, Mohammed consciously set out to replace the pagan pre-Islamic ethics with new ideals, so he attempted to establish the following:  Fraternity/brotherhood in place of blood relationship;  Fidelity/chastity (certain restrictions in sexual relations) in place of indecency which pagans practiced;  Humility and charity towards orphans, widows and poor; and  Justice to neighbors. While it can be said that many of these ethical demands are typical of the Ancient Near Eastern world, they are generally unique to a moral god, al-Lah. The ethical response demanded of the Moslem is seen as a straight path. In fact, it is said that so clear is this straight path that the ethical way is clearly spelled out by Islam. Thus there is a definitiveness for the believer in Islam; one knows what one ought to do and society is guided by these principles

Perhaps more so than other peoples, Americans are people of the law and thus influenced by the law. United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently commented [1] on the founding of the United States. He stated that the British were “puzzled” by the colonists’ desire to be free. In the British mind, the American colonists were “the freest people in the world.” In prophetic and what would become typically American fashion, the colonists answered the puzzlement with a legal document – the Declaration of Independence. [1] CSPAN Television Network – February, 2007.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature&apos;s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Jefferson, in drafting it, expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in &amp;quot;self-evident truths.” The “Committee on Stile” made a number of merely verbal changes and they also expanded somewhat the list of charges against the king. The Congress made more substantial changes, deleting a condemnation of the British people, a reference to “Scotch &amp; foreign mercenaries” (there were Scots in the Congress), and a denunciation of the African slave trade (this being offensive to some Southern and New England delegates). How interesting it is to note that the founders so eloquently write about the liberty of all mankind only almost, but not quite, condemn slavery as a practice. Jefferson&apos;s original draft included a denunciation of the slave trade , which was later edited out by Congress . It set forth the “self evident truth” such as “equality” and established an ethical basis for independence. What Locke applied to individuals, Jefferson applied to a people –

For our purposes here, the Declaration is most important, a statement of morality based upon ethical principles. The phrase that rises above the rest in its moral eloquence is of course, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson and Franklin’s “self-evident truths” lead us back to the idea of the concept of absolute truth. They tell us that there are many truths but some truths are truths ipso facto. They speak for themselves, everybody knows or should know this. All men are created equal – While this is an ipso facto truth, the Congress as a whole succumbed to the exigencies of sustaining the already-present system of agriculture relying on African slavery. It took another almost 90 years to begin to rectify this failure on their part. Endowed by their creator – an acknowledgement that these truths come from a source outside man himself. Certain unalienable rights –A “right” is an entitlement and here it is an entitlement that is unalienable , literally “cannot be made foreign.” Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – When the Declaration was first published internationally, by happenstance in Ireland, the European press seized upon this phrase to deride the colonists. “What does the pursuit of happiness mean,” they asked? Actually, the phrase was a euphemism for “property.” Original drafts also had the word, “property” but “the pursuit of happiness” was substituted. Later, we will see these principles expanded upon and restated in modern language, where the right to “life” morphs into the right to “human dignity.” For example, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations “articulates the international community&apos;s determination &amp;quot;to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, [and] in the dignity and worth of the human person.&amp;quot; The Charter, as a binding treaty, pledges member states to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion (Arts. 55–56). Another modern restatement of Jefferson’s principles is the principle of “autonomy” found in the Belmont Report, the statement of the rights of subjects of scientific experimentation brought about by the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Not really related for our purposes but of interest is this. We all know that the Declaration of Independence has also been a source of inspiration outside the United States. It encouraged Antonio de Nariño and Francisco de Miranda to strive toward overthrowing the Spanish empire in South America, and it was quoted with enthusiasm by the Marquis de Mirabeau during the French Revolution. Of really acute historical irony is the fact that the Preamble to the Declaration was quoted almost ver. batem by Ho Chi Minh in the writing of the 1945 Declaration of Independence of Viet Nam. Self-Evident Truths

Lastly with the Declaration, we see the phrase, “[t]hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .” In this, we find the moral foundation for the existence of government, to “secure these rights.” Public Health is a creature of government. Securing these rights is part of our ethical duty as well. These principles began to be displayed immediately in George Washington and others. Washington displayed remarkable ethical principle in his command of the troops of the Continental Army and especially in his treatment of prisoners. In his book, Washington’s Crossing , Fischer remarks on Washington’s treatment of Hessian prisoners of war captured after a bloody battle in which the Hessians had brutalized the Continentals, “giving no quarter.” After the Battle of Princeton, Washington put a trusted officer in charge of the 211 captured privates with these instructions: &amp;quot;Treat them with humanity. Likewise, even the pragmatic John Adams sought the ethical high ground in the Revolution. Adams wrote to his wife, Abigale on February 17, 1777: “Is there any Policy on this side of Hell, that is inconsistent with Humanity? I have no Idea of it. I know of no Policy, God is my Witness but this -- Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty, and Villany have prevailed and may again. But they wont prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed the less they succeed. ”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the &amp;quot;Committee of Stile and Arrangement.&amp;quot; This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris

We the People of the United States – Certainly, the Framers were an elite group, many were educated and property owners, they were among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. In stark contrast to the Divine Right of Kings, these men established their concept of government on the principle enunciated by Jefferson in the Declaration – that of the “social contract,” government was with the consent of the governed. That, in and of itself is a principle moving toward “personal autonomy.” As theoretically enticing and noble as this sounds, it may well be stated that the over-riding reason they enunciated this principle of governance was more likely pure practicality. Why would the people of this Continent want to exchange the tyranny of one monarch for the possibility of tyranny by another or by an elite oligarchy. They all knew they were taking their lives into their own hands [2] and having taken this step, from a person standpoint, they could not afford to fail. In other words living by this moral principle – personal choice and autonomy – was beneficial to the society they sought to establish, but also to themselves as individuals. This is a lesson in the practicality of principle for us as public health professions. We should seek to be ethical beings only because of principle but also, because it works. Establish Justice – “What is justice”? Classically, there are a variety of ways to look at it. Some would define &amp;quot;justice&amp;quot; in terms of equality--everyone should get or have the same amount, regardless of how hard they work, or &amp;quot;what they put in.&amp;quot; Other people define &amp;quot;justice&amp;quot; in terms of equity--people should get benefits in proportion to what they contributed to producing those benefits. Still other people believe in equity with a bottom &amp;quot;safety-net&amp;quot; level which protects people who, because of misfortune or disability, are unable to work or even help themselves. Still another definition of justice focuses not on output, but on process. Results can be &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; if they were obtained by a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; or fair process. Which ever definition we choose, it is going to involve some measure of fairness. Insure Domestic Tranquility – Peace. The framers realized that only government can keep the peace. If there is not peace within a society, the society breaks down. One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers knows as Shays&apos; Rebellion. Prior to Shays’ Rebellion, it might have been thought that the United States could continue under the Articles of Confederation. However, the idea that there was not peace at home, was perhaps the last straw in helping the framers of the Constitution realize that there had to be a mechanism to preserve the peace at home or the society would fall on itself. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system that had greater ramification than anyone thought. Promote the general Welfare - This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide.

Right living Do no harm Do not lie Do not steal Do not hoard Moderation Cleanliness Contentedness Perseverance Self-study Higher Being Right Speech Right Actions Right livelihood Right effort Effort to Improvement Right mindfulness Awareness Right Mental thought No gods/idols/swearing Sabbath keeping Honor parents Do not murder Do not commit adultery Do not steal Do not lie Do not covet Golden Rule Love God/Love man Brotherhood Fidelity/chastity Humility Charity Justice Equality Life Liberty Happiness Government Social contract Equity Fair process Peace General welfare

Public Health shares in common with medicine and nursing the idea that we exist to help keep people alive, primum non nocere , first do no harm. Is the prevention of death or at least the refraining from affirmatively causing death always the ethical goal of man? The writer here attended military school during the Viet Nam era. In anticipation of our potential military service and the likelihood, given the historical period in which we lived, of seeing combat, we had drilled into us on a daily basis the mission of the military combat squad, “to kill , capture or destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.” To kill – we - and soldiers - were and would be trained to kill. To paraphrase the aforementioned “Golden Rule,” we trained not to “do unto others as we would have them do unto us,” but to “do unto others, then cut out .” Is that ethically a bad thing? We will not spend too much ink on this point, but since later we will discuss public health professionals if not killing people, at least volitionally allowing them to die in a disaster scenario, a word or two on the ethics of killing is called for. One would assume that in pre-recorded history somewhere, some homo sapien picked up a rock a killed another homo sapien . Was it justified? In recorded history we have the first murder found in the Judeo-Christian teaching when Adam’s son, Cain murdered his brother, Abel because God had accepted Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s. God clearly condemns this action. Further, in his Commandments to Moses, God forbids what the King James Version calls “killing.” Many modern translations read this as “committing murder.” So, is God against all volitional killing? Apparently not since there are numerous examples of God instructing the Israelite nation on their sojourn to take the Land of Canaan, not only to kill the soldiers of the native peoples, but the women, children and animals as well. Likewise in Numbers Chapter 35, God sets up cities of refuge to which the one who has killed another may run for protection from the “avenger of blood.” We see here at least two principles justifying volitional killing. First the “avenger of blood,” himself is allowed to kill another if the other has been found guilty of murder. Fulfilling the theory of lex talionis, the Avenger of Blood is the state-authorized executioner. Moses was not the first to employ the ex talionis, it was well established in the neighborhood already extant for centuries. Moses records another point about justifiable killing in the passage cited supra ., accidental killing .

In our Common-law based legal system, we recognize a number of justifications for the taking of human life. Following up on Moses, many jurisdictions still authorize state executions under appropriate circumstances. While state-sanctioned execution is certainly a subject for hot ethical debate, in many states, it is still the law and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that the practice, per se is violative of the Constitution. In Baze v. Rees, two Kentucky inmates challenged the state&apos;s four-drug lethal injection protocol. The lethal injection method calls for the administration of four drugs: Valium, which relaxes the convict, Sodium Pentathol, which knocks the convict unconscious, Pavulon, which stops his breathing, and potassium chloride, which essentially puts the convict into cardiac arrest and ultimately causes death. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the death penalty system did not amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. In a 7-2, the Court held that Kentucky&apos;s lethal injection scheme did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Noting that the inmates had conceded the &amp;quot;humane nature&amp;quot; of the procedure when performed correctly, the divided Court held that the inmates had failed to prove that incorrect administration of the drugs would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court also suggested that a state may violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment if it continues to use a method without sufficient justification in the face of superior alternative procedures. The law also recognizes killing due to self defense and defense of another under certain when there is a reasonable belief that the life of the actor or third party is threatened by the perpetrator and that killing the perpetrator is the reasonable course of action. But back to the Army, is killing by soldiers morally and ethically permissible? While some would argue that no killing is ethical, even one of the great saints of the Church authorized killing under terms of what he called “just war.” St. Augustine of Hippo (3 rd century AD) wrote in Summa Theologica that a war and the killing of soldiers that ensues is ethically permissible when the war is waged by a lawful authority, it is defensive in nature, waged with the right reasons, is authorized by legitimate government and is proportional to the underlying preceptor cause. The Summa Theologica gives the rule for conduct of war ( jus ad bellum ) while international rules of warfare such as the Geneva Convention give the rules for the conduct in war ( jus in bellum .) I would refer you back to Washington’s treatment of the Hessians, q.v. The point is that in some circumstances, traditional wisdom has it that war and the killing that ensues is ethically permitted.

Who has not heard of the Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by physicians as a rite of passage into the profession. It is attributed to its namesake, Hippocrates, the father of medicine, circa. 4th Century B.C. It is postulated that it could have been written by one of his students. First thoughts of the Oath would instinctively lead us to the concept of “first, do no harm,” primum non nocere . It is a common misconception that the phrase primum non nocere , &amp;quot;first, do no harm&amp;quot; is included in the Hippocratic Oath. It is not, but seems to have been derived through Galen from Hippocrates&apos;s Epidemics in which he wrote, &amp;quot;Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things-to help, or at least to do no harm.&amp;quot; What it, or more precisely the modern versions of it do teach are the following principles. “ Primum non nocere” – first do no harm; Always look to the good of the patient; Place a high value on human life; Perform only within one’s training and skill; Refrain from improper relations with patient; Maintain patient’s secrets inviolate; and Do not violate community laws or morals. Medical ethics may be summarized into four principles: non-maleficence, doing no harm; beneficence, doing what is best for the patient; autonomy, allowing the patient the informed right to choose; and justice, treating everyone alike. But, what about in a disaster? Well, interestingly enough, according to historians, the history of physicians’ responses to contagions is mixed. Galen is reported to have fled from Rome during a plague in 166. Although in the 14th century some physicians stayed and cared for the sick, most responded to the Black Death by fleeing. Defoe indicates in novelistic chronicle about London’s great plague of 1665, that most physicians were called &amp;quot;deserters&amp;quot;. In the mid-19th century, nascent professional organizations began to articulate the physician’s ethical obligation to care for the sick during epidemics. The World Health Organization observes that in the past, the AMA code of ethics had “quite explicit” guidance for physicians in particular regarding their duties and obligations during an infectious disease outbreak. For example, for over 100 years the following provision was found in the AMA code of ethics: &amp;quot;when pestilence prevails, it is their (physicians&apos;) duty to face the danger, and to continue their labours for the alleviation of suffering, even at the jeopardy of their own lives. Interestingly enough, this particular provision was deleted from the AMA code of ethics over fifty years ago. “It is questionable,” they state, “whether such stringent requirements would be endorsed as an expectation by current professional associations.”

Currently, the American Medical Association (AMA) addresses the issue of the conflict between medical ethics and the ethics of a disaster: “ National, regional and local responses to epidemics, terrorist attacks and disasters require the involvement of physicians. Because of the commitment to care for the sick and injured, individuals have an obligation to provide urgent medical care during disasters. This ethical obligation holds true in the face of greater than usual risks to their own safety, health or life. The physician workforce, however is not an unlimited resource; therefore, when participating is disaster responses, physicians should balance the benefits to individual patients with the ability to care for patients in the future.” A take away from this policy statement is first and foremost, that physicians have an affirmative duty to participate in disaster preparedness and response . The quoted statement goes on to urge physician participation in the planning and conceptualizing for such response in advance. Further, physicians have an affirmative duty to actually provide urgent care in a disaster. What if such care is outside their area of expertise? Does this mean merely that physicians who are presented with disasters must perform in the midst of the disaster or does it mean that if they are not on duty the night the dam breaks, they have a duty to voluntarily report to the hospital to lend support to their brothers and sisters? When can the physician quit and go home if people are still sick and dying? That remains to be seen. E-9.067 instructs the physician to “balance the interests” of staying tonight to perform and getting some rest so he or she can live to fight another day.

The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, prepared a report on the ethical concerns presented in planning for the pandemic influenza. The point of physician’s ethical duty to “stay and fight,” vel non , is summarized at page 8. The working group concludes: The duty to care for the sick is a primary obligation for health care workers for a number of reasons, including: the ability of physicians and health care workers to provide care is greater than that of the public, thus increasing their obligation to provide care. by freely choosing a profession devoted to care for the ill, they assume risks. the profession has a social contract that calls on members to be available in times of emergency. The report goes on to compare physicians and other health care workers to fire fighters who “do not have the freedom to choose whether or not they have to face a particularly bad fire. . . ;” and to police officers who “do not get to select which dark alleys they walk down.” The issue, however, is not settled – it should be before the time to act comes

Likewise, such ethical concerns still linger in the nursing profession. The American Nursing Association issued a paper entitled “Ethics and Human Rights Position Statements: Risk Versus Responsibility in Providing Nursing Care.” In this statement, the American Nursing Association believes that nurses are obligated to care for patients in a “non-discriminatory” manner yet, they say, the Association “recognizes that there may be limits to the personal risk of harm the nurse can be expected to accept as an ethical duty.” The summary of the ethics of the profession on this point goes on to hold that the nurse is not at liberty to abandon those in need of nursing care or at least to assure that alternate care is available unless there are conditions peculiar to this nurse that would limit the nurses ability to perform or place the nurse at peculiar harm not characteristic of any other nurse in the same circumstance. Interpreting the statement as a lawyer would, I suggest it means that a nurse is excused from duty if she has a personal circumstance peculiar to the nurse that would not be common to other nurses similarly situated. That is to say, if this nurse is immuno-compromised, that may be an excuse to go home. However, because there is a risk in a pandemic of infection or even death and the nurse has responsibilities at home, such is not an excuse because any other nurse would be exposed to the same risk of infection and death and most of us have other responsibilities away from the work-place. One could hearken back to the general statement by the Toronto group applicable not only to physicians, but to all health-care providers that in choosing this field, the person has chosen to forfeit some person freedoms of choice in favor of the assumption of a public duty. Again in lawyer terms, the nurse had no duty to perform when the nurse signed up to be a nurse, that was done voluntarily; however, in signing up the nurse has assumed the risk and now is under a duty to perform. The ANA closes this position thusly: “Nursing is a caring profession . . . because of nursing’s long history of standing ready to assist the sick and vulnerable in society, society has come to rely on nursing and to expect that it will rise to the health demands of virtually any occasion.” Yet, there may be limits.

Nursing gives us four criteria to help judge when the moral duty to perform falls inextricably upon the nurse.  The client is in significant risk of harm . . . if the nurse does not assist.  The nurse’s intervention is directly relevant to prevent harm.  The nurse’s care will probably prevent harm. . . The benefit the client will gain outweighs any harm the nurse might incur and does not present more than an acceptable risk to the nurse

The National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians published its Code of Ethics which was adopted in 1978. It states: Professional status as an Emergency Medical Technician and Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic is maintained and enriched by the willingness of the individual practitioner to accept and fulfill obligations to society, other medical professionals, and the profession of Emergency Medical Technician. As an Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic, I solemnly pledge myself to the following code of professional ethics: A fundamental responsibility of the Emergency Medical Technician is to conserve life, to alleviate suffering, to promote health, to do no harm, and to encourage the quality and equal availability of emergency medical care. The Emergency Medical Technician provides services based on human need, with respect for human dignity, unrestricted by consideration of nationality, race creed, color, or status. The Emergency Medical Technician does not use professional knowledge and skills in any enterprise detrimental to the public well being. The Emergency Medical Technician respects and holds in confidence all information of a confidential nature obtained in the course of professional work unless required by law to divulge such information. The Emergency Medical Technician, as a citizen, understands and upholds the law and performs the duties of citizenship; as a professional, the Emergency Medical Technician has the never-ending responsibility to work with concerned citizens and other health care professionals in promoting a high standard of emergency medical care to all people. The Emergency Medical Technician shall maintain professional competence and demonstrate concern for the competence of other members of the Emergency Medical Services health care team. An Emergency Medical Technician assumes responsibility in defining and upholding standards of professional practice and education. The Emergency Medical Technician assumes responsibility for individual professional actions and judgment, both in dependent and independent emergency functions, and knows and upholds the laws which affect the practice of the Emergency Medical Technician. An Emergency Medical Technician has the responsibility to be aware of and participate in matters of legislation affecting the Emergency Medical Service System. The Emergency Medical Technician, or groups of Emergency Medical Technicians, who advertise professional service, do so in conformity with the dignity of the profession. The Emergency Medical Technician has an obligation to protect the public by not delegating to a person less qualified, any service which requires the professional competence of an Emergency Medical Technician The Emergency Medical Technician will work harmoniously with and sustain confidence in Emergency Medical Technician associates, the nurses, the physicians, and other members of the Emergency Medical Services health care team. The Emergency Medical Technician refuses to participate in unethical procedures, and assumes the responsibility to expose incompetence or unethical conduct of others to the appropriate authority in a proper and professional manner.

Pharmacy is as ancient as medicine and co-developed with that art. In the far distant past, somebody expressed juice from leaf and applied it to a wound – in so doing became the first pharmacist. Like medicine, the art goes back into the Greek legends and Egyptian science. Legendarily, Asclepius, the god of the healing art, by whom all new physicians swear in the Hippocratic Oath delegated to Hygieia the duty of compounding his remedies. She was his apothecary or pharmacist. Egyptian science divided “physicians” into those who visited the sick and those who remained in the temple and prepared remedies for the patients. This separation was carried on by the Greeks and Romans and on into the new millennium by the Arabs. Finally, the separation became the law. Growing from the same root, the twin trees of medicine and pharmacy share many ethical principles in common. The Alabama Board of Pharmacy maintains a Code of Professional Conduct which requires in para materia , at Alabama Administrative Code, R. 680-X- 2-.22: A pharmacist should hold the health and safety of patients to be of first consideration and should render to each patient the full measure of professional ability as an essential health practitioner . Look at the 1994 Code of Ethics of the American Pharmacists Association , (APhA.) isolate on Principles Numbers VII and VIII which state in paraphrase that though the pharmacist has a duty to put his patient first, he or she also has a duty to society as a whole and must balance those duties in the shortage caused by the disaster in a “fair and equitable manner.” Pharmacists are also advised to be involved in the planning process for the distribution of anti-virals and the maintenance of the flow medications in a pandemic. Perhaps more than the other professional associations, pharmacists are urged to “step up to the plate” on pandemic related issues in furtherance of their public service obligations.

There have been many uplifting and morally upright chapters written in the history of the State of Alabama. However, one of them was not the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment which took place in East Alabama town of Tuskegee with the full knowledge of the government of the United States and at least the acquiescence of the State of Alabama. As you will remember from your history, beginning in 1932 and continuing until 1972, a 600 black men, 399 of whom were identified as being infected with syphilis and 201 without, who rather than being treated, were instead surreptitiously monitored to see what the long term consequences would be. In the 1970s, the truth, as it always does, began to out and the consequences of this very bad idea were many and far-reaching. By the end of the study, only 74 of the test subjects were still alive. Twenty-eight of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. As part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit subsequently filed by NAACP, nine million dollars and the promise of free medical treatment were given to surviving participants and surviving family members who had been infected as a consequence of the study. The Tuskegee experiment represents an abuse of power by physicians in the face of illiterate minority patients. One attorney who represented the patients and their survivors commented on the illiteracy of the patients&apos; descendants, which he discovered while attempting to identify potential beneficiaries of the legal settlement: Perhaps the most distressing thing [attorneys] Gray and Carter encountered was the lack of social and economic mobility among the heirs. “There were more people who had to execute document by making marks than I&apos;ll ever see the rest of my life,” Carter recalled. “It didn&apos;t matter whether they had gone to Cleveland or stayed right here, so many of them were illiterate and uneducated .” Not content to experiment only on US citizens, it was disclosed in October, 2010, that the United States had experimented with the injection of live syphilis virus on Guatemalans in 1946-48. Further, vulnerable populations in Guatemala—mentally incapacitated patients, prison inmates, sex workers, and soldiers were intentionally exposed to sexually transmitted infections (syphilis, gonorrhea, and chancroid). In an apology for this unethical conduct, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated: &amp;quot;The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical,&amp;quot; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. &amp;quot;Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices,&amp;quot; the statement said.

One good consequence of the Experiment was the push within the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to study the ethical principles involved in such human experimentation and to issue guidelines applicable to all institutions proposing perform such research. A blue ribbon commission was established by HEW and was directed to consider:  the boundaries between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted and routine practice of medicine,  the role of assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination of the appropriateness of research involving human subjects,  appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects for participation in such research and  the nature and definition of informed consent in various research settings. The report was finished on April 18, 1979 and gets its name from the Belmont Conference Center where the document was drafted. Belmont, which at one time belonged to the Smithsonian Institution, is located in Elkridge, Maryland, close to Baltimore.

The Tuskegee Experiment was not the first widely publicized abuse of human subjects to draw widespread attention and to beg corrective action. In the wake of atrocious tales of human experimentation by the infamous Dr. Mengele for Hitler in World War II, the Nuremberg Code was written to set standards for the judging of the ex post facto conduct of physicians and scientists in the war. The Nuremberg Code, though a retrospective, nevertheless became the “prototype” for several later codes that had a prospective application. The Nuremberg Code divided the field into three broad areas of scope: boundaries between practice and research; basic ethical principle; and practice. Building upon the Nuremberg foundation, the World Medical Associated in 1964 drafted the Declaration of Helsinki. Named for the meeting place, Helsinki, Finland, the Declaration established informed consent as the ethical standard in research while allowing for “surrogate” consent in appropriate cases. The Declaration also enunciated the principle that research should only be performed when it is “necessary to promote the health of the population represented.” The Helsinki Declaration laid the foundation for the establishment by the Belmont Report of Institutional Review Boards. The Belmont Report builds upon this base and continues it placing the general principles more in utilitarian categories.

In 1991, fourteen federal agencies joined HHS in adopting the uniform set of guidelines for human research and the protection of human subjects. This today is known as the “Common Rule,” and is the standard for all agencies and institutions performing such research. Boundaries between practice and research - According to Belmont, “practice” refers to interventions designed to “enhance the well-being” of the individual while “research” applies to the process to test an hypothesis, permit the drawing of conclusions therefrom and thus contribute to generalizable knowledge. This definition needs to be borne in mind as the place of the research has changed over the years. Research is no longer carried on only in teaching institutions and academic medical facilities. One author estimates that there are as many as 19,000,000 individuals participating in research in a given year. The Heart of our consideration herein is the second portion of Belmont as informed by Nuremberg – ethical principles. These principle, though specifically applicable to research involving human subjects sounds very much like basic human rights statements – and so they are. Belmont renders three basic principles: respect for persons, beneficence and justice.

Respect for persons is an eagle with two wings. First that persons should be treated as autonomous agents and second that persons with diminished capability for autonomy must be protected by society. Autonomous persons have the right to have their opinion consulted in matters that relate to themselves. To make a fair judgment about such decisions, they must be given accurate information and must not be pressured into making decisions. One of the first things our IRB looks at in an IRB submittal is the “informed consent.” Is there one? Is it really “informed,” does it give enough information, and is it understandable to the group under consideration. A further aspect of this is the requirement that this consent be periodically tested to make sure the subject still understands and still consents.

Beneficence, pictured here in the statute called “Beneficence” by Daniel Chester French, on the campus of Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, requires the investigator to not only make sure there is continuing knowing consent, but to look out for the broader good of the subject. The investigator starts with a borrowing from Hippocrates and “does no harm” and then move past this to attempting to maximize the benefit to the individual subject. In other words, this principle requires the investigator not stop at merely doing no harm because as the research progresses, what is considered “harm” can change based on facts learned. A thorny ethical controversy involves questions of whether it is a valid subject of beneficent research where there is little or minimal risk to the subject balanced against substantial benefit to generalizable knowledge or even to identifiable groups.

The Principle of Justice applies to the allocation of risk and benefit the subjects and to the expected served populations. To explain, it can be said that there are several formulations for distributing the benefits and burdens of research: to each person an equal share, to each person according to his or her need, to each person according to societal contributions past and future or to each person according to merit. An example of the justice principle is the question of how the researcher goes about selecting the subjects for the research. Are these welfare patients, from a particular socio-economic or ethic background, confined populations such as prisoners? If so, the selection process of the subjects would give me pause as an IRB chair. The reverse application of the principle is true for the recipients of the benefit of the research. Is it going to benefit only a member of one of these groups or is it going to exclude systematically members of one of these or other groups?

As these principles work themselves out in the mechanics of application, there must be an informed consent, a detailed analysis of the risk to benefit ratio and an analysis of the criteria for selection of the subjects of the research. There are occasions when the revelation of the subject of the research would invalidate the outcome. In that case informed consent requires three things: 1) incomplete disclosure must really be necessary, 2) there would be no undisclosed risks that are more tan minimal to the subject and 30 there is an adequate plan for debriefing subjects after the conclusion of the project. The laying out of the risk to benefit ratio concerns itself with probabilities and “magnitude” of possible harm and anticipated benefits. Harm, of course can be more than merely physical, consideration must also be given to psychological, legal, social and economic elements of the possible risk. These must then be balanced. To a great extent, the “balancing” is subjective but should be governed by a full knowledge of the ethical principles which underlie research itself. The selection of subjects is accomplished principally according to the justice of the matter. This obtains on a social and an individual level. Individually, researchers should be fair with the subjects, telling the truth to them and not offering inflated goals or promises. Neither should promises or recruitment statements be used to encourage or discourage particular subjects.

For a very thorough treatment of ethical concepts in public health in general written prior to 9/11 and the marriage of public health with disaster preparedness, I invite your attention to Ethics and Public Health: Model Curriculum , an online self-guided course sponsored jointly by HRSA, the Association of Schools of Public Health and the Hastings Center. F unded by the CDC and the Public Health Leadership Society (PHLS), the Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health were developed by Center for Health Leadership and Practice, Public Health Institute and members of the PHLS ethics work group. Lawrence Gostin tells us that in 2000, a “diverse group of public health professionals” was convened to draft a code of ethics to guide the practice of public health. A year later, the code was reviewed by ethicists and practitioners and adopted as an official statement by the American Public Health Association in 2002. Other national public health organizations have since recognized the Code. In its Preamble, this Code sets forth an interesting manner of self-interpretation. The Code states what the drafters believe to be key principles of the ethical practice and then attach a statement listing the key values and beliefs upon which the ethical principles are based. An important underlying definitional understanding is the Code’s affirmation of the World Health Organization&apos;s understanding of the term “health.” WHO defines “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity

The Code settles on twelve Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health . 1. Addresses fundamental causes of disease, aiming at prevention. 2. Respects the rights of individuals in the community. 3. Utilizes community input to develop policies, programs, and priorities. 4. Advocates for the “empowerment” of the disenfranchised community. 5 . Seeks the information needed before acting. 6. Provides the community with information to make decisions. 7. Acts in a timely manner on the information. 8. Incorporates a variety of approaches that anticipate and respect diversity. 9. Implements programs/policies to enhance physical and social environment. 10. Confidentiality - Exceptions must be justified on the basis of the high likelihood of significant harm to the individual or others. 11. Professional competence. 1 2. Work collaboratively to build the public&apos;s trust.

In its “value and belief section,” the Code reaffirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family.” Other underlying values and beliefs inform their Twelve Principles. “Humans are inherently social and interdependent,” they hold, thus the principle of “community.” Community is perpetually balanced as against the rights of the individual. Therein is a major tension. Another underlying concept is the idea of public trust. Any institution whether public or private will always be hampered in its work if the public doesn’t trust it. Part of that trust is the principle of allowing the community to comment on policy decisions. Likewise, collaboration among not only institutions but with stake-holders is a key element to public health. The Code observes that “[p]eople and their physical environment are interdependent. A detriment to one flows backward to the other. These should not be viewed as separate societal goals. The Code also is upheld by the science of prevention and the appropriate gathering, use and dispersion of knowledge. Lastly, the Code requires action . It is axiomatic that all the knowledge in the world is of little value if public health does nothing constructive with it. Public health is active rather than passive, and information is not to be gathered for idle interest. Yet the ability to act is conditioned by available resources and opportunities, and by competing needs. Moreover, the ability to respond to urgent situations depends on having established a mandate to do so through the democratic processes

The key provision to such ethics is the idea of prohibiting the using of one’s public position for personal gain. While some state ethics laws go further, many don’t. The Alabama Ethics law, according to the current State Ethics Commissioner was, in the wake of Watergate, “conceived in a cavalier game of ‘chicken’ between the state Senate and House of Representatives.” Further, Melvin G. Cooper, the first Alabama Ethics Commissioner tells us that in 1970, after the legislature had passed the bill, no one expected the then Governor George C. Wallace to sign it. However, on the day after it was passed by the second house, Governor Wallace did sign it very early in the morning before any of the legislators who had passed it could attempt to persuade him not to. Mr. Cooper later learned from Governor Wallace that “the Guvnuh” was so sure that the legislature would not pass such an act that he stated on the first day of the session that if they did pass such an act, he would sign it “without even reading it.” Mr. Cooper states that Governor Wallace told him privately that such was exactly what he did – or didn’t do as the case was.

The point of this story from Alabama political lore is that typically public ethics laws are very narrowly crafted for the very good political reason that they apply to the men and women who pass them and if those men and women are not politically careful, they can become their own executioner. Thus, public ethics laws in exquisite contrast to the foregoing Code of Public Health Ethics , deal with unitary issues such as Alabama’s not using your public officer for personal gain. There are many, many practices that could go on in a state government which would violate ethical principles established since the time of Moses but which are not forbidden or even addressed in public ethics laws. Remember that codes of ethics written by professional organization like the American Public Health Association are guiding lights, the violation of which makes you feel bad. However the violation of public ethics laws sends you to jail. One famous Alabama elected official, State Public Service Commission President, Juanita McDaniel, was convicted of using her public office for personal gain by using false expense accounts. She was sentenced to prison in 1980. See the previous note. What the article cited therein doesn’t tell you is that she served her time in the State’s newest city jail in Fort Deposit, population about 1043, and that the doors to her cell were never locked, a l  Otis of Andy Griffith fame. Further, while in jail, she, affectionately known as “’Nita,” was a member in good standing of the Bethel Baptist Church’s ladies’ Sunday School class and regularly hosted class meetings in the kitchen of the new city jail. My Aunt, the late Sue Priester, was a member of that class and tells this story as a part of our family history.

See Screen.

The following article appeared in the Daily Reveille on July 20, 2006: A doctor and two nurses were arrested Monday for allegedly practicing euthanasia at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina. The three medical staffers were each arrested for second-degree murder. The three are accused of injecting patients with lethal doses of Morphine and Versed. &amp;quot;This is not euthanasia. This is homicide,&amp;quot; Attorney General Charles Foti said. &amp;quot;We&apos;re talking about people who pretended that maybe they were God.&amp;quot; … The trio allegedly intentionally killed multiple patients by administering or helping administer lethal doses of the two drugs. The investigation was sparked following Katrina and eventually led to a Lifecare Hospitals statement that reported possible euthanasia of patients at Memorial Medical Center. [The Hospital stated:]&amp;quot;I believe this case is a strong one and that these charges are based on sound legal and medical evidence. … While I am aware of the horrendous conditions that existed after Hurricane Katrina, … I believe that there is no excuse for intentionally killing another living human being.&amp;quot; … [A]ccording to LSU associate sociology Professor Sung Joon Jang, [he] believes the three accused were likely trying to help and meant no ill harm. &amp;quot;Their motive was to do something good,&amp;quot; Jang said. &amp;quot;At the time it was probably their best judgment. Of course when you do something like this, it brings in the moral and physiological principles and legal questions that must be addressed. No matter what their decision, their motives could have still been questioned.&amp;quot; … Jang believes the accused three were acting out of compassion, but in Louisiana, euthanasia is against the law. &amp;quot;The fact is, the law was broken and it is my job to seek justice for the victims in this case,&amp;quot; [Louisiana Attorney General Charles] Foti said. &amp;quot;It gives me no pleasure to report what happened here today and my heart goes out to the families and loved ones of those victims.&amp;quot; In January 29, 2007, the staff members were fired from their jobs. In March of 2007, their case was presented to a special grand jury. On July 3, 2007, the Grand Jury returned a “no bill.” On August 16, 2007, the New Orleans court expunged Dr. Pou’s record with a promise to do the same for the nurses. Louisianasubsequentlychanged the law to provide more protection for professions in such exigent situations.

Obviously, we have now turned our attention from the theoretical to the practical – in fact to the deadly serious. It is here where have “quit preachin’ and gone to medlin,’” as Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina was accused of doing when he attempted to initiate reforms in state government. A number of questions come to mind and these questions will underlie the remainder of the paper. What really happens in a disaster? How do people’s relationships change? Do people think and react differently? Are the consequences the same as if you had reacted “in the sunshine?” The “Outback Steakhouse Question,” are there really “no rules?” How can you “rank” people in order or precedence to receive vaccine, ventilators or treatment according to ethical principles? Can you invoke “altered standards of care? What are the rights of staff to desert, vel non ?

What happens in a disaster? CERT Training from FEMA tells us what we really already know. Disaster survivors normally experience a range of psychological and physiological reactions, the strength and type of which depend on several factors: prior experience with the same or a similar event; intensity of the disruption; length of time that has elapsed between the event occurrence and the present; individual feelings that there is no escape, which sets the stage for panic; and the emotional strength of the individual. Studies have shown that their reactions go through stages and that their reaction to workers vary according to the stages from exuberant following of instructions to disbelief and disgruntlement. Psychologically, they may be subject to certain physiological and physiological Symptoms including: irritability or anger; denial; loss of appetite; self-blame; blaming others; mood swings; headaches; chest pain; isolation; withdrawal; diarrhea, stomach pain; nausea; fear of recurrence; hyperactivity; feeling stunned, numb, or overwhelmed; increase in alcohol or drug consumption; feeling helpless; nightmares; concentration and memory problems; inability to sleep; sadness, depression, grief; fatigue and low energy. For our purposes, we know that disaster workers may go through many of the same symptoms leading to the conclusion that in the end, they may become “stressed out” and may make bad choices and the wrong decisions.

And what of the consequences, are they the same as if one had reacted “in the sunshine” rather than in the storm? Related is the asking of the “Outback Steakhouse Question,” are there really “no rules?” While it may depend on what you did, who you did it to, how bad it was and most importantly, who saw you do it, these questions are answered, “yes and no.” “Yes,” in the aftermath of the storm, the consequences may be the same as if you had done it in the sunshine and “no,” there is never a situation where there are “no rules.” Ask the healthcare workers in the scenario above if there are consequences that flow from their actions in the Eye of the Storm and ask the Honorable Charles Foti, Louisiana Attorney General, if there were no rules.

Let’s now attack perhaps the hardest concept governing what can and cannot happen: will euthanasia ever be an option? Perhaps the ethical issues of this could be debated for a long time given what we have already learned about the balance between the right to life and the sometime morally acceptable taking of life . I would submit that this issue will not be solved in the church but in the courtroom. In today’s political climate, it’s going to be very, very difficult, if not impossible, to ever write a scenario that would justify euthanasia or assisted suicide, except in Oregon, and now, Washington State, the only 2 states officially sanctioning “assisted suicide.” In Oregon, (1) An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. The Oregon statute has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court at least against a procedural challenge where the Attorney General filed suit to have the statute ruled unconstitutional based on conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The High Court held that the CSA did not authorize Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, as authorized by ODWDA. However, as seen, supra , when such decisions are presented to grand juries, depending on the facts, though the act may violate the state’s criminal law, the grand jury may not indict. Even if they do indict, petit juries may not convict. In discussing such weighty matter from the judicial perspective, one is led to the problem of assuming this terrible decision is ethically acceptable, can it be legally done? This brings up perhaps the most important balancing test in Constitutional Law, the balance of the rights as against the rights of the society to preserve itself and the other people in it.

Before we get to the right to life, let’s first look at the issue of whether government can even address the question at all. The landmark case from public health standpoint is a case which involved required vaccination for smallpox, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Jacobson is such an important case for public health that CDC recently held a workshop to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of this case. Henning Jacobson, a prominent local preacher, refused to be vaccinated after the City of Cambridge, MA. passed an ordinance finding “smallpox prevalent in the city and continues to increase” and directing “vaccination of all inhabitants of city except children who present a certificate signed by physician that they are unfit subjects of vaccination.” State law authorized city boards of health to require and enforce vaccination and specified a fine of $5 for anyone who refused to comply. Jacobson refused and was fined, and took his case to Mass Supreme Court and then to U.S Supreme Court

[“The p]olice power of state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly be legislative enactment as will protect the public health and safety. . . .The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within discretion of the state, subject, of course, that . . . no rule . . . or regulation . . . shall contravene the Constitution of the United States, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures.” The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.” Real liberty for all could not exist if each individual can use his own, whether in respect of his person or property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. . . . Upon the principle of self defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” In affirming Massachusetts’ compulsory vaccination law, the Court found this a legitimate use of state powers and established a floor of constitutional protections that consists of four standards: necessity, reasonable means, proportionality, and harm avoidance. The Court would look into the question of whether the course of action involves “rights” of an individual and if so whether those rights are “fundamental” or not. If the rights are merely rights secured by law, the state can intervene to place some limits on those rights if the state’s action is “reasonably related to a legitimate government”. If, on the other hand, the heart of the question involves a right that is deemed to be “fundamental,” the state cannot violate that right.

Writing a comment on the case of Gonzales v. Raich in the Fordham Urban Law Journal , Adam Hyatt commenting upon the situation in New Orleans raised in the introduction to this section, concludes that even in such dire circumstances, the High Court would not be able to find an ethical basis for such actions, perhaps he adds, even “in the case of extreme circumstances and … a compelling government interest.”

Granted, the for the sake of argument, “we can’t volitionally kill people, what is the ethical justification for taking those other decisions that have the effect of determining who will have the opportunity to remain alive in the disaster and who won’t, decisions involving triage and the allocation of scarce resources: vaccine, treatment modalities and supplies such as ventilators and personnel? Would we be legally authorized and ethically sound in altering the standard of care?

Human beings have been thinking and writing about ethics in general, disaster management in particular, and the application of ethical ideas to public policy for as long as we have been thinking and writing. Literally 5,000 years ago, the Egyptians struggled with their idea of maat - by which they meant the appropriate good order of society - and the role of the Pharaoh in preserving or restoring that when the annual Nile floods got out of hand. Later – much later - the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham&apos;s claimed that public policy should “maximize the good across the greatest number.” Utilitarian theory, or what is often referred to as consequentialist ethics, assesses what is right or good based on whether the consequences of the actions to be taken will be good. In contradistinction to Bentham’s utilitarian view of the world – and in our case of disasters, Immanuel Kant propounded an egalitarian theory known formally as “deontology,” or duty-based ethics. This theory focuses on non-consequentially based notions of good. In duty-based ethics, deciding what is right or good is based on meeting duties and obligations.

The term, Triage , (to sort out) was a French military medical term based on the Benthamite utilitarian principles or trying to achieve the most good for the most people. It was popularized during the Napoleonic Wars by the Baron Dominic Larrey, Napoleon&apos;s chief surgeon. It has been adapted to modern military and civilian medicine. Originally, triage grouped casualties into four groups based on care needed and typically in this order: immediate, minimal, delayed and expectant. The use of triage, according to Professor Orr from the University of Vermont, must be done without regard to rank, age, race, social worth or income. It is thus based, he holds, not on the social worth of the individual, but on societal need.

Professor James Tabery states of the ethics of triage in disaster situations that there has been or is in the process of becoming switch from standard medical ethics with the primary focus on individual autonomy to an ethics of public health with a primary focus on the health of the community , with the overarching goal being to minimize morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. Professor Tabery then takes the Bentham/Kant debate into the 21 st Century in looking at models for triage: Utilitarian v. Egalitarian. In other words, given scarce resources, do the workers address the needs from the basis of for whom they can do the most good , or to those who are in greatest need ?

Of the utilitarian model, he observes that the goal is to help those for whom you can do the most good following the long-established standard in military medicine and in aspects of the healthcare industry. He quotes: “… triage decisions regarding the provision of critical care should be guided by the principle of seeking to help the greatest number of people survive the crisis…the most ethical way to help the greatest number of critically ill people survive in such dire conditions is to give such interventions first to the people deemed most likely to survive.” He notes advantages: this plan follows a clear, simple, community-recognized goal in a potentially chaotic environment. However, it has disadvantages: situations will arise with no clear utility-based answer apparent that may lead to “unintended, insidious discrimination (ex. ageism, sexism, racism.)

Goal: to help those in greatest need Ranks patients based on severity of illness, with patients in the most severe condition receiving the medical attention The ultimate goal such as limiting morbidity and mortality during the pandemic is de-prioritized in order to preserve the egalitarian principles. Nick Saban says, “it’s all about the process.”

So far, Tabery has summarized history. Now, he gives us something new: the hybrid approach. This approach draw on virtues of both the utilitarian and egalitarian models yet follows the utilitarian model, recognizing the public health goal of minimizing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. In other words, one uses a utilitarian approach but with egalitarian methods.

There are a number of disaster triage methods suggested by various authors. They typically involve “sorting out” patients into 3 or 4 groups. CERT - training utilizes 3 groups: Immediate, delayed and dead. This method does not address extremely scarce resource scenarios. SOFA - Ontario Provincial Health Plan which utilizes 4 groups based on a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) with patients tagged: red – highest priority for care; yellow – next priority; blue- care and discharge; green – defer or discharge. EMS -A very commonly used method by pre-hospital EMS personnel is the START method – simple triage and rapid treatment based on three primary observations: Respiration, Perfusion, and Mental Status (RPM). Patients are tagged for easy recognition The Four Colors of Triage are Green - delayed care / can delay up to three hours; yellow - urgent care / can delay up to one hour; red - immediate care / life-threatening and black - victim is dead / no care required. Hospital ED - five category triage categories is typically used.  Triage category 1: need for resuscitation - injury or who may have had an overdose of intravenous drugs and be unresponsive.  Triage category 2: emergency - patients seen within 10 minutes.  Triage category 3: urgent - patients seen within 30 minutes.  Triage category 4: semi-urgent - patients seen within 60 minutes. Triage category 5: non-urgent - patients seen within 120 minutes. SERV - The Journal of the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine , Dr. Burkle, suggests what he calls the “SERV” method of triage for large bioevents such as an influenza pandemic. He points out that normal triage methods used in the E D or by medics in the field do not consider exposure, duration or infectiousness. Consequently, such methods do nothing to control disease transmission and delayed recognition of victims. Rather, he submits, the theory of triage should be altered to provide management based on what he calls “population control” with the goal of preventing secondary disease transmission. Canadian (Alabama) Method The Canadians, with some experience in mass infectious events are developing a protocol for pandemic influenza triage. In so doing, they used components from other types of triage plans, such as severity scoring systems. Their pandemic triage plan consists of four components: inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, minimum qualifications for survival, and a color-coded prioritization tool. The &amp;quot;minimum qualifications for survival&amp;quot; component attempts to place a limit on the resources used for any one patient.

Whatever method is decided upon, may I offer several points: It needs to be decided now . Have a plan now. [1] It is a moral failure to put off such a momentous decision until there is no time to reach a good decision. Professor Tabery urges the use of a Triage Review Board including an administrator, physicians, nurses, clergy, ethicists, and community persons at large to oversee the use of triage on a very frequent basis for practical as well as ethical reasons including the need to “engage the public” at pre, during and post stages of the pandemic or disaster. At this pointing the debate, the method to be used , if not agreed upon (and that is entirely possible that it will not be agreed upon,) it should at least be formulated with wide input. Professor Tabery’s thoughts do have much to lend themselves to the utilitarian. He states that a good plan needs a Triage Officer – the initial person making these life and death decisions, needs to be a senior and well-trained individual, not a neophyte.Triage is not simple, it requires great skill, a certain “seasoned hardness” and perseverance. It should be constantly reviewed during the implementation phase. The triage officer should be debriefed periodically by superiors and the whole process looked at on an on-going basis by the Triage Review Board [1] Coach Paul “Bear Bryant” is often quoted for the management technique: “have a plan, work your plan, plan for the unexpected.”

The New York State Departments of Agriculture and Environmental Conservation estimate that in a “moderate” pandemic influenza event, patients will most likely utilize: • 63% of hospital bed capacity; • 125% of intensive care capacity; and • 65% of hospital ventilator capacity. Thus, in a discussion of the ethical treatment of patients, we would be in a scarce resource situation; this leads to a discussion of the ethical and legal basis for Altered Standards of Care . When is it permissible from an ethical and legal standpoint to provide less than the care normally expected or held to be what is referred to in both the medical and legal professions as the standard of care?”

Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness (OASPHEP) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) convened a blue ribbon working group. In their report, they state the following finding, inter alia . The goal of an organized and coordinated response to a mass casualty event should be to maximize the number of lives saved. Changes in the usual standards of health and medical care will be necessary to allocate scarce resources in a different manner to save as many lives as possible. The basis for allocating health and medical resources in a mass casualty event must be fair and clinically sound. The process for making these decisions should be transparent and judged by the public to be fair. Protocols for triage need to be flexible enough to change as the size of a mass casualty event grows. Staff concerns must be addressed pre-event

. The committee reports that in such scenarios, the focus will have to change from doing to best for each patient to maximizing the most lives saved. They recognize that such consideration will affect current patients already in the hospital for other, non-related illnesses and injuries. They also recognize that the usual scope practice standards will of necessity change, equipment and supplies will need to be rationed, documentation standards will change, and [basically, bodies will pile up .]

 The aim is to keep the health care system functioning and to deliver an “acceptable” quality of care to preserve as many lives as possible.  The plan must be community wide.  There must be an adequate legal framework to allow for the altered standards of care.  The rights of individuals must be protected “to the extent possible and reasonable under the circumstances.” The public must be informed on planning and decision making pre, during and post event

To address legal issues there are two approaches: change state law to provide for these measures in a form such as the Model State Emergency Powers Act [ or write executive orders for the Governor to sign in the event. I am proposing the latter strategy for Alabama based on Alabama’s Emergency Management law, a discussion of which is found infra. Once again, it appears that we are drawn back into the ethical discussion between Bentham and Kant or utilitarianism v. egalitarianism. As Professor Hoffman says, it may be argued by lawyers that the “standard of care” by definition alters itself in a disaster. The commonly accepted “standard of care” for medical procedures is stated as “what a similarly situated provider would do in a similar circumstance.” If that be the case, a jury could not hold against a physician or nurse practicing in the conditions which were extant in Memorial Hospital in New Orleans in August, 2005 after the storms to those of a “sunny day” in April at one the hospitals operated by the University of Chicago or University of Alabama Birmingham or to even to the charitable Mercy Hospital. Nevertheless, providers are acutely aware that they may need some sanction for a change in the recognized standard of care. If standards of care are not “altered” and hospitals and professionals are held to the same standard they are on that “sunny day,” there will be significant liability issues.

Up until this point, the ethical discussion has basically been about the order of treatment for patients, but the same ethical discussion plays out on the topic of rationing of vaccine, supplies and equipment. Since we have been engaged in the discussion about the impending pandemic, CDC has issued a number of chilling statements and papers. One such is the CDC Pandemic Influenza Immunization Recommendations. While the politicians and drug manufacturing companies wrangle about how to improve or revamp the decades-old system for manufacturing vaccines , [ CDC suggests what will happen if they have to deliver vaccines now. This report details who will get the limited supply of vaccine. And the ethical discussion comes back of placing a quantitative value on life. The CDC plan, developed in conjunction with ACIP and NVAC creates priority groups and tiers. The plan is to start with vaccinating group 1A on to 1B and so forth. Obviously, there will be overlap because CDC realizes that it is not feasible to finish a group before you move on to the next. With their plan, CDC engages the ethical discussion in an attachment. CDC has devised priority groups with subgroups Health care workers Public service workers High risk populations

A close look at the CDC system clues us that they are attempting to use a system not unlike the hybrid reasoning system outlined by Professor Tabery. CDC also allows room for local input into actual utilization of the plan in a local area, however some very recent discussions coming out of Washington disclose that many local authorities do not want much leeway. Note an earlier point that in the view of this writer, failure to make appropriate decisions “in the sunshine” causing a “disaster within a disaster” is the greatest moral failure of all. Last year, a federal interagency working group comprising members from all government sectors released the “Draft guidance on allocating and targeting pandemic influenza vaccine.” which in concept, mirrors the first iteration, identifies target groups, or people defined by a common occupation, type of service, age group, or risk level, and clusters target groups into four broad categories: homeland and national security, healthcare and community support services, critical infrastructures, and the general population. Notably, children are given more consideration, though not elevated in ranking. Within individual categories, groups are clustered into levels that correspond to vaccination priority within that specific category. And, across categories, vaccine will be allocated and administered according to tiers where all groups designated for vaccination within a tier have equal priority for vaccination. Groups within tiers vary depending on pandemic severity. The guidance breaks the population down in the following manner. According to the report, underlying the working group’s deliberations was a “strong consideration of the ethical issues involved in allocating vaccine when supply is limited.” Vaccinating some people earlier than others to minimize health and societal impacts of a pandemic was considered ethically appropriate. Other important principles that were considered were:  fairness and equity (recognizing that all persons have equal value, and providing equal opportunity for vaccination among all persons in a priority group);  reciprocity, defined as protecting persons who assume increased risk of becoming infected because of their jobs; and  flexibility to assure that vaccine priorities are optimally tailored to the severity of the pandemic and the groups at greatest risk of severe infection and death

One of the first groups to take on the ethical assignment of devising and recommending a plan for rationing equipment was American Association of Respiratory Care. Based on their model, the Alabama Department of Public Health has put out for comment its own assignment of ventilators. The proposed Alabama “Criteria for Mechanical Ventilator Triage Following Declaration of Mass-Casualty Respiratory Emergency” was adapted from the three-tier criteria developed by Drs. John L. Hicks and Daniel T. O’Laughlin. ADPH suggests that hospitals utilize this criteria as a template for local and regional disaster management plans. It relies of several “triggers” including declaration of mass casualty emergency involving respiratory failure, by the Governor of Alabama or national or regional authorities, and by local HEICS commanders and activation of the National and Alabama Pandemic Flu Disaster Plans. In Tier 1, the plan clearly calls for the withholding of ventilators in certain circumstances including certain respiratory failures and evidence of certain organ failure. Then, Tier 2 would “withdraw ventilator support and not offer ventilator support” to patients with certain pre-existing organ system failures or compromises such as CHF. Tier 3 tells the staff to “withdraw ventilator support” from patients who are currently on a ventilator but who go into a Tier 1 state. In the Plan’s words, “do not offer ventilator support . . .” At this point in the emergency, we begin to recall our discussion of St. Augustine’s jus ad bellum, q.v. At the point we begin to take people off ventilators knowing that do so will hasten their death, we are moving perilously close to the taking of life. Didn’t we read somewhere that one of “inalienable rights” is the right to life ? While vaccines and ventilators are the tip of the iceberg, the same ethical discussion obtains with O 2 and other medicines and supplies as well. What about when the hospital has become an island in a newly formed “sea” of floodwaters and the food and fresh drinking water are running out, will we engage the same ethical discussion? .

The Alabama Department of Public Health is currently, as of this writing, developing a plan to assist hospitals in planning for and the conduct in a disaster. This plan, though starting with a ventilator protocol, will ultimately deal with triage as well. In the Alabama plan, the criteria for disaster triage will be decided not on an institution-by-institution basis, but rather on a statewide basis but developed by a large committee made up of member from a number of professions throughout the state. The idea is that the criteria will ultimately be decided upon by the committee, approved by the State Health Officer with the support and input of the state hospital association and its member institutions and added as an addendum to the state’s Emergency Operations Plan managed by the Emergency Management Agency. Executive orders would be written for the Governor to sign implementing the protocol in the proclaimed emergency. It is suggested by this author that the executive orders should also proclaim that hospital personnel functioning in accordance with the EOP plan would be deemed to be “emergency management workers” and thus entitled to immunity for all but wanton and willful misconduct or bad faith. The Governor’s Taskforce appointed by the Governor of the State of New York to examine such issues suggests a different path to granting protection to personnel following such altered standards and triage procedures. The recommend legislation would be the surest route to grant some immunity to those personnel. They held: Legislation is the only avenue certain to provide robust protection for providers who adhere to the guidelines. Such legislation could offer immunity to health care providers who follow guidelines for ventilator allocation, or alternatively, could guarantee defense and/or indemnification to providers. Alabama’s justification in using a “top down” method rather than a “bottom up” method is one of practicality. It has become apparent that the plan must be proffered by those with expertise and perhaps more importantly, those whose job it is to do this for the task to ever be accomplished. While Professor Tabery’s egalitarian ideas of the formation of such plans have great appeal the sense of fairness and democracy in the community, Alabama has come to the conclusion that it just won’t work that way. In other words, in an egalitarian-utilitarian debate on the formation of the plan, Alabama is utilitarian

Individual liberty -Since restrictions to individual liberty may be necessary, restrictions should: be proportional, necessary, and relevant; employ the least restrictive means; and be applied equitably. Protection of the public from harm - Private organizations and public health may be take actions that impinge on individual liberty. Decision makers should: weigh the imperative for compliance; provide reasons for public health measures to encourage compliance; and establish mechanisms to review decisions. Proportionality - restrictions to individual liberty and measures taken to protect the public from harm should not exceed what is necessary to address the actual level of risk to or critical needs of the community. Privacy - Individuals have a right to privacy in health care. In a public health crisis, it may be necessary to override this right to protect the public from serious harm. Duty to provide Care - weigh demands of professional roles against other competing obligations to the professional’s own health, and to family and friends Reciprocity - requires that society support those who face a disproportionate burden in protecting the public good, and take steps to minimize burdens as much as possible. Equity - All patients have an equal claim to receive the health care they need under normal conditions, difficult decisions will be made about which health services to maintain and which to defer, this could curtail not only elective surgeries, but could also limit the provision of emergency or necessary services. Trust - Trust is an essential component of the relationships among clinicians and patients, staff and their organizations, the public and health care providers or organizations, and among organizations within a health system. Trust is enhanced by upholding such process values as transparency. Solidarity - requires a new vision of global solidarity and a vision of solidarity among nations, challenges conventional ideas of national sovereignty, security or territoriality, requires solidarity within and among health care institutions and calls for collaborative approaches Stewardship - Inherent in stewardship are the notions of trust, ethical behavior, and good decision-making. This implies that decisions regarding resources are intended to achieve the best patient health and public health outcomes given the unique circumstances of the influenza crisis

The writer began this paper with the ethical situation faced by health care workers in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. In the paper written by nurses, some of whom lived through the storm, we found that many left town after the storm perhaps never to return. We all remember the stories of other non-health workers leaving town as well – but before or during the storm. Fifty-one New Orleans police officers and employees were fired for desertion of duty before or during the storm. MSNBC News, quoting acting police superintendent Warren Riley said. “They either left before the hurricane or 10 to 12 days after the storm, and we have never heard from them.” The report goes on to state that police were “unable to account for 240 officers on the 1,450-member force following Katrina.” However, some have argued that the New Orleans desertions were an anomaly. Jane Kushman of the Institute for Emergency Preparedness of Jacksonville State University, writing in the Natural Hazards Observer, states that desertion by emergency workers, what she terms “role abandonment,” has been discussed in the disaster literature since the 1950s. She notes that several early studies confirmed that emergency workers suffered psychological strain due to the conflicting demands of their professional duties and their desire to take care of their families. However, she emphasizes that these studies also reported that role conflict and strain did not lead emergency workers to abandoning their professional responsibilities. Kushman goes on to mention a 1976 Dynes and Quarantelli study of more than 100 disasters with interviews exceeding 2,500 with organizational officials. This study concludes that role conflict was not a serious problem that created a significant loss of manpower. She states: With the exception of Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Police Department, there have been no documented reports of widespread role abandonment during disasters in the United States The Powell-Young nurse’s report finds their nurses claiming the same ethical dilemma faced by health care – and other – workers in such a magnitudinal disaster when “the event requires commitment to a single obligation when two or more genuine duties exist. In other words, the nurses and other health care providers had to make hierarchical quantification of value principles at work as well as at home. Again, we are thrust back into Kant’s and Bentham’s principlism v. utilitarianism debate. Even if one attempts to maintain a principlist approach, the values compete.  Autonomy v. Non-maleficence - mandatory evacuation with spouse vs. duty to employer despite risks.  Autonomy v. Beneficence - Evacuation of self and ill spouse post-Katrina vs. mandatory lock-in  Autonomy v. Justice - Evacuation of self and ill spouse post-Katrina vs. employer contract for provision of spouse’s medical needs. Health care workers said they were most willing to report to work during mass casualty incidents (86%) and were least willing to report during a SARS outbreak (48)% or smallpox epidemic (61%).

Professor Tabery argues that the workers must find a way personally to balance these competing obligations. We have already seen the AMA and ANA statements which basically say the same thing – balance must be found. Further, codes such as AMA’s and ANA’s apply to only those healthcare workers who have these specific jobs and belong to the respective organizations. They don’t even attempt to address support staff. How can you run a hospital without support staff? While the facilities themselves have a great deal of ethical responsibility to prepare for such eventualities, much of which requires “thinking outside the box” of current hospital management practice and extends past the workers to their families, it is incumbent on workers to come to the realization, as we have said early in this paper that they chose this profession, not unlike a marriage – for better or worse and in so doing, they have, in effect, made certain decisions already. Professor Tabery reminds the health care worker: If you don’t come to work, the problem doesn’t go away. In fact, the problem only gets worse. In a disaster situation or a pandemic, every employee will make a difference by contributing his or her part to providing care. All employees must ask themselves, ‘If I don’t work in times of crisis, then who will?’ It is interesting to note that though workers agreement to report for duty is to some degree depend on the type of emergency, other factors may also be involved. In a survey, ninety percent of health care workers reported at least one barrier to their willingness to report in an event, including similar issues regarding family responsibilities, such as child, elder and pet care. The author of the study points out that “many of the barriers identified are amenable to intervention. For example, pre-disaster plans can be developed for the transportation of medical staff, and adjustment of staff schedules can be arranged so that staff can share among themselves child, elder, or pet care responsibilities.” This in no way removes the duty from the worker to report, but it does thrust a moral imperative upon health care facilities and public health entities to create mechanisms to overcome barriers to worker’s fears of participating in an event in much the same manner in which Toronto created new ways to offer “carrots” to citizens to obey quarantine orders in the SARS outbreak. Facilities and public health entities have a duty to realize that workers come to them not we wish they were but in the words of the old hymn, Just as I Am. Wishing it wasn’t so won’t get any more patients treated, but meeting workers, “just as they are” will. In this vein, there is shared duty among public health entities, health care facilities, professional organizations and health care workers themselves to take all necessary means to insure that staff will actually report and continue to report when faced with a disaster. Public health would say that pandemic influenza planning, in this case as related to facility staff situations, comes down to two essential components, personal preparedness and continuity of operations planning (COOP). Public health organizations have duty to assist facilities in the planning process and to educate facility administrators, staff and the public in general what some of those measures might be. Personal preparedness is not only a personal priority for the worker but also for the facility that employs workers. If employees are not prepared at home they will not come to work. In that case, all the organizational planning for COOP would be wasted. Public health has suggested that to ensure that employees are personally prepared, education and discussions must include family plans (child care, parents, and pets), stockpile (food, water, and over the counter medications), and medical care (prescriptions and home care). Those factors that cause worker desertions can be identified and indeed the major ones have already been so identified. It will be ethically necessary for facility planners to take novel measures to “eliminate the excuses

As we said, the duty is shared. Again, according to WHO [1] the role and duty of professional and non-professional Health Care Workers during a pandemic includes a recognition by the worker, as taught by the facility, public health and professional organizations that the participation of health care providers is essential to an effective response to pandemic influenza and that health care workers have unique skills that confer an obligation to respond. Workers should also be taught that the level of acceptable risk a health care worker is willing to countenance is a matter of personal choice. However, it is incumbent on the facility to provide a process for workers to come to grips with what this level is in his or her life consistent with John’s Five Action Principles, q.v. The WHO reminds professional associations that they have a duty to: Provide, by way of their codes of ethics, clear guidance to members in advance of an influenza pandemic. Some have been more successful at this than others. Identify mechanisms, or develop means to inform members as to expectations and obligations regarding the duty to provide care during a communicable disease outbreak and during an influenza pandemic. The WHO report lastly outlines measures for governments to take. Of interest is the WHO’s admonition against using legal pressure on workers, observing that sanctions for failure to report should only be resorted to against health care workers who fail to respond within the context of the existing rules of professional associations and contract law (e.g., reprimand or loss of license, dismissal from employment.) WHO warns that sanctions should not contravene human rights of the worker or the worker’s family in any way. Governments, says WHO, wishing to take steps to ensure a response from the health care sector are urged to employ voluntary measures.

I submit that those voluntary measures are assistance in planning, coordination of systems and public education. Perhaps, though the most important function of government and governmental public health agencies is to bring about John’s last Action Principle – The Nike Principle – Just Do It! Public health has the ethical duty to make this happen, if we fail that, people will die and we will have to live with that failure the rest of our careers and lives. My observation over thirty some-odd years in public health is that when presented with a task, public health has always and always will rise to the task. We will remember the spirit of the ancients that still among us and guided by that spirit will not fail nor falter. It’s all about the Truth “ We’ll Sing in the Sunshine” Casper the Friendly Ghost Transparency Accountability It’s not about me The “Nike Principle - Just Do It!

“ The secret’s in the sauce,” [1] says Sipsey to Curtis Smoot, the Georgia Sheriff, about why the bar-be-cue was so good that day at the Whistlestop Café in rural East Alabama. Like that sauce, there was a secret hidden away in this paper. Hopefully, you discovered it. ( Hint :) The planning principles espoused herein apply not only to disaster planning but to life as well – your life. If you apply these principles to the way you live your life, as Justin Wilson [2] would say, “I ga-ron-tee” ( sic) that no matter what hurricanes, tornadoes, tragedies or pandemics hit you personally, your life will never be a disaster . You will never be a sparrow fluttering helplessly in the wind; you will soar like the Eagle. The Eagle Soars The Eagle soars above the din, Of mankind&apos;s rushing out and in, And lesser creatures left to spin, The Eagle soars from deep within. His course is true as gaffer&apos;s pike, His keen eye pierces like a spike, His quest surrounds him like a dike, The Eagle soars, but phantomlike. Those who on the Earth have stood, Thinking that they never could, Nor many even perhaps should ... but, The Eagle soars because he would . [1] “The secret’s in the sauce,” from Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe , (1987) by the Alabama writer and actress, Fannie Flagg. [2] Justin E. Wilson (April 24, 1914 - September 5, 2001,) was a southern American chef, humorist and self-styled “raconteur” known for his brand of Cajun cuisine-inspired cooking and humor.

Transcript

1.
South Central Public Health Advanced Crisis Leadership Institute January 26, 2012 Perdido Beach Resort, Orange Beach, Alabama By John R. Wible, General Counsel (retired) Alabama Department of Public Health Ethics and Public Health How Public Health Reacts Ethically in a Disaster ADPH, 2012

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

No public official or public employee shall use or cause to be used his or her official position or office to obtain personal gain for himself or herself, or family member of the public employee or family member of the public official, or any business with which the person is associated unless the use and gain are otherwise specifically authorized by law. Personal gain is achieved when the public official, public employee, or a family member thereof receives, obtains, exerts control over, or otherwise converts to personal use the object constituting such personal gain

When it permissible from an ethical and legal standpoint to provide less than the care normally pr traditionally expected or held to be what is referred to in both the medical and legal professions as the “standard of care”?